The High Court · 2025

ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitic rer-accused seeking to quash the proceedings aga r st him in SPL S C No.109 of 2023 pending on the file of t re tearned V Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for rial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Sche<l rled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short 'the earned trial Court'), registered for the offences under Sectior 3(l)(r)(s)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (:.evention of Atrocities) Act, (for short 'the Act') and Sectior 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') 2

02. Heard Sri Avadesh Narayana Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri [t/.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Even after service of the notice, none appeared on behalf the respondent No.2. Perused the record 03(a). The brief facts of the case are that on

02.12.2021, the petitioner-accused, who is the proprietor of Gokul lndustries situated at lndustrial Park, Sy No21/4, Dasnapur, Adilabad, approached the complainant and informed him that the premises of his industry and godown were vacant, and requested the complainant to conduct a New Year event therein. Accordingly, the complainant submitted a representation on 02 122021 to the petitioner- accused. ln this context, on 03.12.2021, the petitioner- accused issued a letter permitting the complainant to conduct the event on 31 .12.2021 . Relying upon the said permission, the complainant invested an amount of more than Rs.9,80,000/- towards the arrangements for the event, including engaging an orchestra group from Warangal and Nagpur, and undertaking decoration of the stages with truss, 7 3 lights, screens, power generators, chairs, berrrcades, flex boards, etc. However, when the police refLr ;ed to grant permission for the event, the complainan: visited the premises of the petitioner-accused and requeslr d that he be allowed to remove the materials brought by h r r so that he could shift them to another venue 03(b) lt is alleged that the petitioner-accus:d grew wild and abused the complainant in filthy languager. stating that "Badakau Gand Me Dhum Nahi Hai, Aukath \,lahi Hai to Kayku Program Karte Re, Harami Kutte, ek lit :h rupee de tabhi saman leke ja, SC Mahar ke bache, Gand Podtu," and further threatened him with dire consequences c I killing him The complainant pleaded with the petitioner-acc;r sed, stating that he had suffered heavy financial loss and vvi s unable to pay any amount 03(c). lt is alleged that the petitioner-acr used made caste-based abuses in the presence of other ::rsons who had gathered there for the New Year event. Th r incident is stated to have occurred on 31 .12.2O2j betwer: r 7:00 p.m \ **1 - \ 4 and 8:00 p.m. in the presence of more than 25 persons Hence, the complainant filed the present private complaint. 0a(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner_accused submitted that the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever with the alleged offences. lt is contended that the police complaint was lodged belatedly on 04.01.2022, after an unexplained delay of three days from the date of the alleged incident, and that the private complaint was subsequently filed on 02.02.2022, nearly one month thereafter, again without any explanation for such delay. lt is further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner-accused and the complainant pertains solely to issues arising out of the proposed conduct of the New Year event, which is purely civil in nature. However, the learned trial Court proceeded to take cognizance without appreciating this aspect. lt is submitted that the petitioner-accused had never intended to humiliate the complainant on the basis of caste, and that the averments made in the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients required to attract the alleged offences 5 04(b). With the above submissions, while praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-; ccused, he relied upon a decision of the Honourable Suprr: ne Court in B.Venkateswaran and others v. P.Bakth,a atchalaml wherein it was held at Paragraph No.3 that: "!. We have heard Shri Nagamuthu, learned set ior counsel for the appellants - oiginal accused anct he respondent appearing in person. We have also 1t ne through the complaint and considered the allegati ns in the complaint made against the accused. Hav ng considered the allegations in the complaint ano he material on record, it appears that initiation ol he criminal proceedings by the respondent against he appellants - original accused for the offence uu ler the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and he Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Ac| 1{89 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and \e couft and also provision of the Scheduled Castes ; rd the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) t ct, 1989. lt appears that a private dispute was goinc, n between the pafties with respect to the ilh> ral construction. As per the allegations in the compla, tt, the original complainant had purchased the vaoi nt land and constructed the building. lt is alleged lt at adjacent fo hls house and on the common pathv/, y, the accused have unlawfully encroached upon lrc ' 2oz3 scc online Sc '14 \l 6 pathway and stafted constructing the temple and thereby have put up illegal construction on his water pipeline, sewage pipeline and EB Cable. ln the entire complaint, there are no allegations that the complainant is obstructed and/or inteiered with enjoyment of his right on his propefty deliberatety and willfully knowing that complainant betongs Io SC/SI From the material on record, it appears that a civil dispute is convefted into ciminal dispute and that too for the offence under the provisions of the Scheduted Castes and the Scheduled Tibes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Prior to filing of the complaint, it appears that the temple was already in existence since many years. The complainant, who resides adjacent to the temple, fited Wp No. 1272 of 2007 before the Madras High Court. pursuant to the order passed by the High Courl, the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai conducted the inspection and found that there was absolutely no encroachment by the temple. lt appears that thereafter the comptainant filed another Writ Petition No. 30326 of 2013 before the Madras High Courl. The High iourt directed the official respondent to proceed with the inquiry against both the parties. At lhls sfage, it is required to be noted that it was the case on behalf of the original accused that in fact complainant had violated a building norms and had constructed a buitding in blatant violation of the set-back rules and had atso put-up unauthoized construction on the ground floor and first floor. That thereafter, the Tempte filed wrl petition being No. 3322 of 2017 before the High 7 Coutl. The Division Bench of the High Cout vide order dated 10.2.2017 stayed the proceedings zrr arnst temple. lt appears that thereafter the complainan filed a private complaint for the aforesaid offences ,nder the provisions of the Scheduled Castes arq the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 9Bg. From the aforesaid, it seems that the private civil dispute between lhe padies is convefted into c,t ninat proceedings. lnitiation of the criminal proceedir,l s for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) c, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduted l -ibes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefcr t, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and ( ourl. From the material on record, we are satisfied ttt i no case for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) anc (va) of the Scheduled Casfes and the Scheduted I ibes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out )ven prima facie. None of the ingredients of Sec ions 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Casles arr the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 989 are made out and/or saflsfied. Therefore, we a e of the firm opinion and view that in the fact: and circumstances of the case, the High Couri ou,l tt to have quashed the criminal proceedings in exeru: e of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Cr,r,inal Procedure. The impugned judgment and c der passed by the High Coutl, therefore, is unsustat,. tble and the same deserves to be quashed and set a;ide and the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants deseryes to be quashed and set aside . 8 O (c). Further, he relied on a decision of the \ Honourable Supreme Cou( in Prabhat Kumar Mishra Alias Prabhat Mishra v. State of tJ.P.2 wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.16 and 'l 7 that: "16. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that the prosecution of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) ot lhe SC/Sf Act is ex facie illegal and unwananted because it is nowhere the case of the prosecution in the entire charge-sheet that the offence under IPC was committed by the appellant upon the deceased on the basis of his casfe.

17. This Couft in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. Slate of Maharashtra considered this issue and held as under:- "9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable wtth impisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or properly on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tibe or such propeiy belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life '? ltn ouLtt'tg zozq sc t2o I t B ii,/ Y I and with fine. ln the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victint should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on fhe basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tibe. ln the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. ln that view of the matter, we think, both the trial couri and the High Courl missed the essence of this aspect. ln these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial coud as well as by the High Coutl ought to be sel asrde. " 05 On the other hand, learned Addil onal public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended llat there are triable issues and factual aspects to be exarr ned by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case 1c quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this junct tre and the 10 \.-*-1 - matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon a perusal of the material on record, it is evident from the complaint and material placed on record reveals that the dispute between the petitioner-accused and the complainant arose out of arrangements for the proposed New Year event and that the dispute pertains to expenditure incurred by the complainant and his request to shift the materials after police refusal of permission to such event lt is alleged in the complaint by the complainant that the petitioner had abused him stating that "Badakau Gand Me Dhum Nahi Hai, Aukath Nahi Hai to Kayku Program Kafte Re, Harami Kutte, ek lakh rupee de tabhi saman leke ia, SC Mahar ke bache, Gand Podtu,". For which a private complaint has been filed and the learned trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and other witnesses had taken cognizance against the petitioner- accused vide Order dated27.12.2023 passed in CFR No 101 of 2022. 1'1 07 On a careful scrutiny of the record ircluding the statements of the witnesses recorded by the earned trial Court, it appears that there are significant incon ;istencies in the utterances allegedly made by the petitioner accused as attributed by the complainant and the other wit'-:sses. The complainant as PW1 alleges that the petitioner-a :cused used the words: "Badakau Gand Me Dhum Nahi Hai \ukath Nahi Hai to Kayku Program Karte Re, Harami Kutte, e r lakh rupee de tabhi saman leke ja, SC Mahar ke bache, cand Podtu." However, the versions of the other witnesses .e. LW2 to LW6 vary substantially. LW2 states that tl-r petitioner- accused uttered: "harami ke bache, tumhari zaett hi aisi hai, chappal leke marlu, mahar ke bache," while L\Ai: , states that the words used were: "tumhare gaand me dum nhi hai tho kaiku aate programme karne ke liye, harami, l: ,the, SC ke bache, gaand phod dalunga tumhara." LW4 : tributes an entirely different version, namely: "badkau lanla <oduka, SC Mahar ke bache. gaand me dum nahi hai thc orogramme kayku karra, Rs.1,00,000/- deke tera saamat leke ja," whereas LW5 states that the petitioner-accuse I said: ,'SC 12 Mahar ke bache, dhed ke bache, aukath nahi hai tho kaiku \ kafthe, kuthe ke bache." LW6, on the other hand, attributes yet another distinct set of words: "gaandu make laude, make laude, gaand phod dethau, SC Mahar ki aulad, dhed ke bache." Therefore, the above statements indicates material contradictions and substantial variations, strongly suggesting improvements might have been introduced at a later stage. The alleged words are not consistent either in content or in sequence, raising grave doubt regarding their authenticity These inconsistencies assume greater significance in light of the unexplained delay of three days in filing the police complaint and nearly one month in filing the private complaint. When the incident allegedly occurred in the presence of more than 25 persons, the failure to furnish a plausible reason for such delay materially creates doubt over the credibility of the prosecution version.

08. lt is to be noted that in the present case, the allegatlons show that the altercation arose solely due to the complainant's monetary and the dispute regarding the event arrangements, which is at best a private dispute, cannot be ./ 13 allowed to be converted into criminal proceedings under the special statute The complaint lacks any f : tndational allegation that the petitioner-accused intentionally irrgeted or humiliated the complainant on the sole ground of t:: rste

09. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Venkateswarans case cited supra, has catego- that a purely civil dispute cannot be permitt :ally held rd to be converted into criminal proceedings under the Act nerely by alleging caste-based abuses, particularly when th. essentia I ingredients of the offence are not disclosed. lt atrr rears that the requisite intention of the petitioner-accused to humiliate the complalnant on the basis of his caste is abse nt as the dispute being fundamentally private in nature. 10 lnsofar as the offence under Section {r )6 lpC is concerned, the complaint does not disclose an/ specific, definite, or actionable threat intended to cause ala m to the complainant. The alleged threats appear to I ) vague expressions made in the heat of altercation arr do not satisfy the statutory requirements of criminal intim < ation lt ( ( \ also appears from the cognizance order that the learned trial Court erroneously included Section 420 of lpC, though no element of cheating, inducement, deception, or wrongful gain/loss is even remotely absent in the complaint, which is unsustainable in law. Therefore, as a whole, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner_accused would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the same is liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the criminar proceedings against the petitioner_accused in sPl.s.c.No.109 of 2023 pending on the file of the rearned V Additionar District Judge-cum-speciar Judge for triar of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY' 1 S . T.SRINIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional District Judge-cum-Speicial Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes( Prevention of Attrocities) Act, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

2.TheSesslonsJudgeforlrialofCasesunderSCs/STs(PotrAct-cum-llAddl ' oi!i*i-r"o Sessioins Judge' Adilabad' Adilabad Distrrct' 3. The SHO Mavala Police Station' Adilabad' Adilabad Distrtc: 4. One CC to SRl. AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI Advocate | )PUCI c T'n,n r:nnies to PUBLIc PRoSECUTOR' High court for th€ " r"ringr-n, at HYderabad [oUT] 6. Two CD CoPies ;tate of PK 1* \ r,J . G*:; F:!ft!!I-:-" ! I HIGH COURT JS,J DATED:05112t2025 -=:: :rr:- \- _- -, i/l l_-_ I I ,I : BEI] M '\'.r \- ,/ CRLP.No.3396 of 2024 CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. B ?)